Difference between 5.7 (350 hp) and 6.0 (410 hp)

[Adiggs]

Hey guys/gals

I demoed a 2014 LSV today w/ the 350 in it and 750's in the rear and the surf wake was pretty decent in my opinion. I have a few questions regarding the 2 engine options and realize that a portion of this topic has been debated in previous post so don't shoot me for asking again. Forgot to say that I will probably run 2315 prop and live in Indianspolis, IN so altitude isn't an issue

1. Anyone have experience with how noticeable the 5.7 to 6.0 is for surfing factory tanks full and 750's in the rear?

2. Any insight on difference in fuel consumption

3. What impact if any is there from a re-sale standpoint between the 2 engines?

4. Long term is the 6.0 as solid of an engine as the 5.7 ( I have always been tod that the 5.7 is a solid reliable engine)

Fire away experts

Thanks

Diggs

[bamabonners]

I don't have first hand knowledge, only what I have read:

1. torque and power are very similar

2. 6.0 burns more fuel

3. Some have said that the slight differences in the engine are not worth the upgrade costs, up to you..

4. only time will tell. The 5.7 has been a very reliable engine that is fairly easy to find parts for.

[mrnate450r]

I read in another thread that they will be doing away with the 5.7 and the 6.0 per info received at a factory tour. They are coming out with a 5.3 direct injected engine. That said, I will agree with bama. I think pkh has had both in a 23lsv, maybe he will chime in.

[happypappy]

go look on the GMC marine site an you can see the power curves for the 5.7, 6.0, 6.2 engines. I am sure whatever Indmar does impacts the HP more so than the TQ.

http://www.gmpowertrain.com/MarineEnginesControllers/ProductPortfolio.aspx

[UofM_MXZ]

I have had both and currently have the 6.0. Real world application will prove the 6.0 more powerful. It isn't like the difference between a small and big block chevy but for me it was enough to warrant the cost.

[Nitrousbird]

It seems that everyone that hasn't had both thinks there is no difference, 6.0 is a waste, etc. Those that have had both seems to almost always prefer the 6.0, from both a power and fuel consumption perspective.

[ahopkins22LSV]

Go check out the 2014 LSV review thread that DocPhil started. He just demo'd a LSV with the 410 in it and had very good things to say about it.

[DocPhil]

Go check out the 2014 LSV review thread that DocPhil started. He just demo'd a LSV with the 410 in it and had very good things to say about it.

I have had your same dilemma. What motor to get. I think it is fair to say that most guys on here buying new LSVs prefer the corvette motor. The LS3 that is. However, when we ran the LSV yesterday with the 409 and the ACME 1235 prop, it seemed like it had more than enough power for all things wakesurf/wakeboard. That being said, I have never run the 350. From what I hear on this site, the 350 is not enough. I think if you added a torque prop, the ACME 2315 you would be ok except under super heavy load or altitude. That is just speculation though on my part. I have no real world experience with the 350. However, if I buy an LSV it will be AT LEAST with the 409 and probably the LS3 for resale and just bad a** motor purposes. I never want to worry if I have enough power

[Adiggs]

@ DocPhilMD- thanks for your reply, insight and write up on both of your demos yesterday. The LSV that I tested had the 350 in it and we ran full factory ballast and 750's in the rear, however we only had two adults in the boat and didn't have any additional bow weight available. the 350 did plane alright with the 2315 prop but again we only had 2 adults in the boat.

the engine decision is one that has been hard for me but i think i am leaning towards the 6.0. I also realize that it's kinda trivial that I am worried about the difference in gas consumption given the price of the new LSV's but i just have a hard time burning additional gas if it isn't necessary. Plus 50% of the time we have a small crew 3-4 adults so that is the main reason why i have even considered the 350.

it's going to be a long winter in Indiana.............

[Dare2goBare]

I have the 6.0 410hp in my TXi can't give a comparison to the 5.7, or comparison to the other Malibu models, but I can tell you that with a crew of five adults on board and all our gear, the boat hauls without any hesitation! The even torque this motor produces is unreal, its been quite the experiance.

I had a 350 mercruiser in my 1992 f3, I would say my fuel acconomy in the TXi, bigger boat and all, and with the latest technology built into this motors, I would honistly have to say I get the same if not better.

IMO

There would definatly be a differance in performance between the two. Indmar's R&D

would have never put the time or energy into development just to bring these two engines

to market that didint have any difference in performance.

[DocPhil]

@ DocPhilMD- thanks for your reply, insight and write up on both of your demos yesterday. The LSV that I tested had the 350 in it and we ran full factory ballast and 750's in the rear, however we only had two adults in the boat and didn't have any additional bow weight available. the 350 did plane alright with the 2315 prop but again we only had 2 adults in the boat.

the engine decision is one that has been hard for me but i think i am leaning towards the 6.0. I also realize that it's kinda trivial that I am worried about the difference in gas consumption given the price of the new LSV's but i just have a hard time burning additional gas if it isn't necessary. Plus 50% of the time we have a small crew 3-4 adults so that is the main reason why i have even considered the 350.

it's going to be a long winter in Indiana.............

You're welcome

The boat is awesome and it appears to do well with the 350 and the torque prop. I currently have the torque prop and the 350 on my 20 MXZ. When we load it down heavy, it does good but this prop really limits top end speed and also runs high RPMs at higher speeds. This is something to consider too.

IMO, I would rather run the ACME 1235 or the 537 with the 409 then the 350 with the 2315 assuming the power for your watersports is similar. The 1235 just gives you more flexibility especially higher speeds.

[Fman]

I spent 4 days in a 2014 MB 23 with the 409 (6.0) and 2315 torque prop, we had 8 adults in the boat, with factory ballast and some extra bags (750's in lockers and 400-600 lbs in bow) it struggled. I was not impressed at all, it did not plane out at times unless we started emptying weight. The MB is 400 lbs less than the new LSV, personally I think it would be a huge mistake to order the new LSV without the LS3. My friend who owns the MB regrets not getting the LS3, and after being in the boat and experiencing the 409 I totally agree with him that it needed more.

There was a thread on here about torque specs on the 350/410 (6.0) and there was not much difference between the two motors. The big jump in torque happens when you go up to the LS3.

[DocPhil]

I spent 4 days in a 2014 MB 23 with the 409 (6.0) and 2315 torque prop, we had 8 adults in the boat, with factory ballast and some extra bags (750's in lockers and 400-600 lbs in bow) it struggled. I was not impressed at all, it did not plane out at times unless we started emptying weight. The MB is 400 lbs less than the new LSV, personally I think it would be a huge mistake to order the new LSV without the LS3. My friend who owns the MB regrets not getting the LS3, and after being in the boat and experiencing the 409 I totally agree with him that it needed more.

There was a thread on here about torque specs on the 350/410 (6.0) and there was not much difference between the two motors. The big jump in torque happens when you go up to the LS3.

Was this at altitude? You generally run at high altitude don't you Fman. It makes a huge difference

Also, one thing to consider is that the MB and the LSV are completely different boats. Balance points are different, the hulls are different, etc. One hull could be more efficient or better designed. I don't think you can go by strict weight specs. If the LSV weighs 10% more then it will automatically have 10% harder time planing? Admittedly, I am no boat expert but this doesn't sound correct to me.

Maybe someone with a deep knowledge of hulls, efficiency and planing can chime in

[Fman]

This was on Lake Powell, it is at elevation. It just seems like a no brainer to me, for the price of this boat, why would you not spend less than 10% more and get an entirely different power experience that would not limit your weighting capability. It really stinks when you have people on your boat and it wont plane out, ask me how I know this year with my VLX. The new LSV weighted for surfing with passengers, gear, fuel, could be close to 10,000 lbs. You can never change a motor once you purchase the boat, and for resale the LS3 will only help you.

I am not sure on hull design differences and how they affect performance. I would think the 23' MB and LSV are pretty close, but the LSV weighs in at 400 lbs more.

Just my .02....

[shawndoggy]

I would think the 23' MB and LSV are pretty close, but the LSV weighs in at 400 lbs more.

Just my .02....

But the MB has 850 lbs more ballast.

[DocPhil]

This was on Lake Powell, it is at elevation. It just seems like a no brainer to me, for the price of this boat, why would you not spend less than 10% more and get an entirely different power experience that would not limit your weighting capability. It really stinks when you have people on your boat and it wont plane out, ask me how I know this year with my VLX. The new LSV weighted for surfing with passengers, gear, fuel, could be close to 10,000 lbs. You can never change a motor once you purchase the boat, and for resale the LS3 will only help you.

I am not sure on hull design differences and how they affect performance. I would think the 23' MB and LSV are pretty close, but the LSV weighs in at 400 lbs more.

Just my .02....

I understand both camps

1)Get as much motor as you need and save some cash

2)85K versus 90K why not spend a little more and get the big boy and never worry

I think the best advice I got on here is that there is only one chance to get the motor. If you want to save, save on some extra junk you can add later and get the big boy.

[shawndoggy]

yeah you can always add a stereo, heater, trailer wheels, leds, etc etc later on.

[DocPhil]

yeah you can always add a stereo, heater, trailer wheels, leds, etc etc later on.

How come no one considers the indmar warranty on the motor.

To me that is the major argument against the LS3 this year. Marine Power is making it and you don't have the option for the 5 year indmar warranty.

Are these warranties junk? Am I missing something here. In fact, this is the major reason why I am consider the 409 over the Ls3

[shawndoggy]

I thought boaters insurance cost about 2k more over the 5 year duration, so you are really buying the warranty?

[DocPhil]

I thought boaters insurance cost about 2k more over the 5 year duration, so you are really buying the warranty?

Is that compared to other insurance plans? Who's the cheapest and best in your experience?

[Dare2goBare]

How come no one considers the indmar warranty on the motor.

To me that is the major argument against the LS3 this year. Marine Power is making it and you don't have the option for the 5 year indmar warranty.

Are these warranties junk? Am I missing something here. In fact, this is the major reason why I am consider the 409 over the Ls3

Unfortunately for us up here in the great white north "Canada" we can't get the Indmar extended 5 year warranty option.

I definitely would have taken it if I could have gotten it, think it's a good ide for these high tech motors.

[Bradley Thornton]

This is a friend of mine he ended up with the 5.7 and we SLAM it with the 2315 prop does just fine.

http://www.themalibucrew.com/forums/index.php?/topic/42075-2013-options-opinions-needed/page-3?hl=torque